Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday April 05, 2009 @09:41PM
from the yes-yes-the-king-is-good dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a move that would make the old eastern German Stasi green with envy, the Thai government has modernized a system that allows citizens to snitch on fellow citizens. 'Internet users are being urged to show their loyalty to the king by contributing to a new website called protecttheking.net, which has been set up by a parliamentary committee. On the site's front page it is described as a means for Thai people to show their loyalty to the king by protecting him from what it calls misunderstandings about him. It calls on all citizens to inform on anyone suspected of insulting or criticising the monarchy.'
An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy."

Advise as many folks as possible at the State Department of your next trip, post a bunch of blog entries about your plans, call your Senator to let him/her know you'll be taking lots of pictures and keeping detailed notes on your trip, and once everything is confirmed as "high visibility" go ahead and post your thoughts on the new site. Be sure to call a couple of CNN anchors to let them know about all the steps you've taken, and dare Thai officials to do a goddamned thing about your online activities once you get there.

Worst case scenario: you get detained for a couple of days, get international exposure from human rights groups and major media outlets, and sell a book deal on the whole charade. I'd do it myself, but frankly I'm too busy with other pursuits.

You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose.

It is quite possible the law Thailand has against insulting their monarch applies to people in other countries. Thailand could then apply to extradite you to their country to face trial. In this case extradition would be unlikely but if you are stupid enough to rock up in their country of you own accord there is nothing the US State department can do apart from provide you a lawyer.

"You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose."

Yes, they can pass whatever laws they choose; and when those laws are oppressive and specifically deny people certain human rights, challenging them in any way possible is an action which has integrity and validity.

Let's say a country passes a law under which member of a particular racial group are all subject to execution by the state. Anyone caught sheltering or providing help to any m

After, including the rubber stamp apology from those who detained you temporarily. In case you honestly believe it won't work out (assuming you took all the prerequisite steps I mentioned), might I recommend Costa Rica for beach lounging? It certainly has a certain allure to it, and if you're not otherwise engaged (read: married) there are certainly other benefits to the social atmosphere. Personal taste may vary, of course.

A typical court is going to have the leader - king, queen, etc. - and a whole bunch of staff. Retainers, advisors, etc. It could be his head advisor that is saying, "But it has to be this way! We must protect the honor of the King!", to which he would reluctantly agree to get the guy to shut the Hell up.

I'm thinking that maybe the only DNS servers that point to the correct IP address are the ones in the country, because the IP address site currently resolved to is parked -- which isn't something any government would likely do with an official server.

Their government try to sell the country as a tourist destination. Well you know what, if I have tourist dollars to spend you can bet I won't be visiting a country where I can go to jail just for criticising someone.

Yep. Glad I've booked my Australia-UK flight on Singapore Airlines. I've been Thai Airways before, but no more. Too much risk of being offloaded at Bangkok for "insulting" their king during the flight or being stranded at their airport for weeks as the government falls apart.

Thailand has effectively had its economy destroyed in the last year. First, a group of people closed down the airport for weeks and caused the tourism industry to lose 50%. Later, the export economy failed because of the economic downturn worldwide. Millions of people have lst their jobs in the last year.

When you add the political unrest happening their now, the high unemployment is sure to cause some real problems in Thailand over the next year or two.

Well, I am not so sure anyone in the US can criticize though (don't know if parent is or not). I mean, it is bad enough that a government jails you for your opinions, but it is worse when your government murders you, no matter what the reason.

You post that as if signing a UN document means that a country actually intends to abide by it. Take a look at the current membership of the UN Human Rights Council.
Based on the history of other UN documents (and my knowledge of world history), I'd rather take my chances as a child in the U.S. than in over 50% of the signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Thai King has very little real power but he yields immense moral authority and is very popular. Thailand is legally a constitutional monarchy but in reality the situation is much more complex. They are supposed to be run by an elected gov't (which is usually a little bit corrupt) but that rule is enforced by the military and about every 10-15 years, there is a military coup (often fairly or completely bloodless) that throws out an exceptionally corrupt gov't and reboots.

In some ways, the Thai Gov't kinda reminds me of an unpatched Windows Machine that needs lots of reboots and eventually a disk-wipe to get working again -- but talking about the gov't structure itself doesn't really explain why insulting the King is a big deal.

Again, like I said... the King is a "moral authority". In many ways, he's the Thai equivalent to the Pope although more in the moral sense than religious sense -- he is a man who is loved by the people and is wished to be seen as "good" by most Thai's. Insulting the King (or Queen) is a personal insult to many Thai people and is one of the few things the Thai in general do not tolerate well overall. Insulting the King in Thailand is the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.

That said, I'd rather visit Thailand again anyday than the many countries in the world that are significantly less tolerant [timesonline.co.uk].

Once you bring in the jackbooted thugs and the jail time "moral authority" is off the table. At least the papacy hasn't had legal power in quite some time, so the pope confines himself to wearing a dress and giving terrible medical advice.

If you think there is an obvious American opinion to this matter, you are a moron. Travel a bit. Open your mind and your eyes.

The Thai people do love him, which is why it is such a problem to criticize him. They personally hate it when the king is insulted (I speak from experience, having lived and worked in Thailand for over a year). The government constantly use this popular love to pass laws that favour themselves and not the king because they can use such legislation to lock people up on the slightest context.

The king him disfavours the lese majeste laws, and wishes aloud for their abolition.

This isn't coming from the Palace, it is coming from the military. It's the Thai version going after the opposition for not being sufficiently patriotic. I've read that the King actually doesn't approve of harassing people for lese majeste.

If you think they aren't serious, check out the following recent story about a lucky Aussie who supposedly criticised the Thai Royal Family. I say lucky because, after much protest and legal fighting, he was deported after he'd been jailed for 6 years !

As a quick correction to your post, he was actually jailed for six months. He had been sentenced to six years, but that was reduced to three years because of his guilty plea. He was pardoned about a month after his guilty plea, having spent a total of six months in prison.

Tips â" This link provides a couple of methods on how to report tips in. One method is to mail to P.O. Box 999, Bangkok . Another indicated is to email directly to protecttheking@parliament.go.th As well, there is an in-page form in Thai for users to complete.

Law & Punishment

This page has five separate links under this title, numbered as shown for convenience. The unnumbered links are:

5. Part 2 â" Offenses Related to National Security; Article 2, Offenses Against the king, queen, heir to the throne or regent. [Translatorâ(TM)s note: This section is a verbatim lift from the = Thai Criminal Code Book II, Specific Offenses, Title 1, Offenses Relating to The Security of the Kingdom, Articles no. 107-112.

When repressive governments set up offices and instruments to have citizens spy on each other, what usually happens is that it just becomes a tool for parties to private disputes to hassle each other. It becomes easy to set up a bunch of false witnesses and turn in your adversary to the authorities.

And the government employees who run this racket, soon discover this abuse. And in an effort to separate the "good" reports from the "bad", they become gatekeepers. So now if you want to turn your adversary in,

Under the infamous PM Thaksin, the "War on Drugs" gave Thai police the authority to execute drug dealers in the north on the spot with no trial. It became simply a way to consolodate the drug business and/or get rid of trouble makers. The police (corrupt and involved in drug trafficking themselves) killed whomever they wished and planted drugs on the body after.

The big problem is that the King can't pardon anyone until someone has been actually sentenced. Rather convenient when *you* set the trial date.

This issue really has nothing to do with monarchy; even in the UK similar laws exist, we're just sensible enough to ignore them most of the time. More to the point, Prime Minister Blair was bad enough. We don't like the idea of President Blair.

I think people here get wrong idea. You should respect the local law. Many people here try to say it is okay to drive 200 km/h in US just because driving like that in Afghanistan is NOT illegal.
I think many people should respect to other cultures. Don't set anything in developed countries as the world standard.
I don't think it is the fault of King that someone is found guilty of lese-majeste. It is that person's duty to know the law or at least the culture / special law of where he or she is going. The

You think Monarchy that locks up anyone who criticizes it, in any way is... a 'good example' of a monarchy?

Perhaps you missed the part where the OP wrote, "King Bhumibol Adulyadej is actually against the lèse majesté law"? It's the government that's at fault here, not the King. And notice that he's not grabbing power from the government to abolish the law himself, either; he's only stating his wishes and hoping that the true seat of power (the government) listens to him.

Well, it looks like it is time to sink the boot into Thais again, and their over-the-top laws in relation to Lese Majesty (criticising the royals).

I agree that people should be free to criticise anyone in a free society, and that locking people up for up to 15 years for something as minor as criticising a royal is ludicrous, here are some facts you may not be aware of:

1. Thailand's king Bhumibol Adulyadej said a few years ago in a birthday speech that the law of lese majesty was outdated and he would pardon anyone found guilty of the crime. He has since kept his word.

2. The crime of lese majesty came about in Thailand because under their constitution it is illegal for the royal family (who are supposed to be above the rest of society) to comment on the day-to-day running of society. They cannot respond to political attacks, nor can they react if people personally attack their character.

3. Because the Thai royals cannot respond to attacks, and take legal action or comment at any defamatory comments about them, the crime of lese majesty was inserted into the country's constitution, as a safeguard against political attacks on the royals.

4. Every time there is a general election the parliament has to vote on whether to can the lese majesty laws. Despite the king saying the laws no longer need to be in existence, the Thai people revere the king, and would vote out of office any politician who voted to abandon the lese majesty laws, hence the laws remain.

People in Thailand do not have the same freedom of speech rights that people in the west do, but to portray the king as some sort of evil ogre who is so sensitive to criticms that he cannot deal with an insult is just ridiculous.

This website will no doubt create a bureaucratic headache for the king, but should not be seen as evidence that Thailand is a dictatorial state.

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

Fuck this multiculturalist bullshit. Lese majeste is nothing except a way to oppress the people. If you can't say your opinion on something, it is as evil as any dictatorship in the world. You see, after reading a bit about the king, I know

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either... (see sig below)

Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either...

True enough perhaps, but your point is actually my own: some cultural artifacts are objectively worse than others. Specifically, male circumcision is not as bad a thing as female circumcision. If we removed the glans and not just the foreskin, then the procedures would be comparable.

Arguably they should both be stopped... but I'm not going to take to the streets defending my dearly-departed foreskin or the King of